P-40 Engine Settings as I found them (a bit weird)

[JtD]

Let's spell it out for you since this seems to be a tough concept.

 

If you pushed the throttles to the stops in a Allison F3R engine without the MAP regulator...

 

You will ONLY see 52"Hg on the manifold pressure gauge in level flight.  You will not see 56"Hg, 66"Hg, or anything else.  When you maneuver, the manifold pressure will rise and fall with propeller load.

 

 

This is wrong.

 

If you push the throttle to the stops, you will see 56"Hg in a MAP regulator equipped engine in level flight.  End of story...period.

Dude, you aren't thick, you are obese. I'm not going to explain it to you another time, because it has been explained to you around a dozen times in this topic alone.

 

And whatever is "a tough concept" for you is kids stuff for most other folks around here. About everyone posting knows what a MAP regulator/automatic boost control is and it has been covered in other topics months and years ago.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

If you push an F3R throttle to max without regulator, max MP is not 52", that is just ridiculous. It's gonna be higher then 56" considering 56" is achieved ~3,500ft and under

 

Without MPR, Throttle purely adjusts carburettor opening. With MPR, it adjusts carburettor opening based on desired MP.

 

Shouldn't be hard to understand this.

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Dakpilot]

I don't think anyone is saying you cannot "produce' more than 52"Hg MP, just that you cannot monitor it with the gauge present, and will not know if you are getting into  situation which is genuinely 'engine critical'

 

Chees Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I don't think anyone is saying you cannot "produce' more than 52"Hg MP, just that you cannot monitor it with the gauge present, and will not know if you are getting into  situation which is genuinely 'engine critical'

 

Chees Dakpilot

Crummp literally said that

 

 

 

 

If you pushed the throttles to the stops in a Allison F3R engine without the MAP regulator...

 

You will ONLY see 52"Hg on the manifold pressure gauge in level flight.  You will not see 56"Hg, 66"Hg, or anything else.  When you maneuver, the manifold pressure will rise and fall with propeller load.

 

 

This is wrong.

 

If you push the throttle to the stops, you will see 56"Hg in a MAP regulator equipped engine in level flight.  End of story...period.

 

 Meanwhile 

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Dave]

Ok, Imagine you don't have the Regulator and you make a sharp downward turn and you come out at higher speed than before that manouver and at lower altitude. Because of Higher Speed/Ram and Lower Altitude you Manifold Pressure is now higher, lets say it rose from 52" to 56" and 56" was your upward PERMISSIBLE limit, you would enter the manouver at a lower MAP.

With a Regulator it doesn't matter and you can enter that manouver at 56" and the Regulator does all the adjsuting and maintaining 56".

That's why you can fly at higher MAPs with a Regulator than without. 

There is no difference in permissible MAP, but one has a built in buffer, the other has to be operated constantly by the pilots and to have a buffer for  Aerobatics, you simply tell him that he has to stay at i.e. 52" and maintain that. He may get to 56" without danger, but if you tell him he can, he will exceed that and go to 60" and more and risk his engine.

Hi Klaus,

I don't need a physics or flying lesson from you. I am an ex RAAF pilot with a BSc in Physics (with RAAF training in aeronautical engineering, flight mechanics, meteorology and aviation medicine) and a Masters in Computer Science. I don't need to imagine aggressive manoeuvring in a military aircraft. I've done it - day after day. I haven't flown a P40E. I have flown a WW2 vintage tail dragger. Regardless of what aircraft you fly, having to "fly the aircraft" while manoeuvring is unchanged. Its not like changing gears in your car - you are _constantly_ trimming the engine and flight surfaces throughout all manoeuvres. The guy without the MAP regulator is constantly trimming throttle to stay as close as possible to his target setting. Incidentally - preempting your next comment - the engine doesn't instantly explode when you drift above it for a few seconds between instrument scans.

You cannot fly at higher MAP with a regulator than without. The regulator "limits" MAP below critical altitude. Without the regulator limiting MAP a higher MAP is achievable. The "buffer" you keep going on about is all in your mind. A MAP regulator only relieves the pilot of the task of having to maintain a target MAP. Pilots without this aid manage it manually. You don't set the throttle at the entry to a manoeuvre and forget it. You constantly fly the aircraft. The MAP regulator makes this easier. It doesn't alter physics.

I find this whole discussion rather amusing given that a couple of pages back Crump swore black and blue that the P40E was equipped with the regulator and now is using its absence in his efforts to downgrade the maximum attainable performance of the V1710-39F3. Having been corrected on a plainly false statement made so matter-of-factly he now dances around the point with assertions of other peoples' inability to comprehend some alternate meaning of his plainly false statements.

Now he plays the my-qualifications-eclipse-yours game and loses out badly again.

Keep em coming.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Dave

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I don't really know what we're arguing about anyways anymore.

I don't really know what you two are arguing about anymore. 

I read it like this: In an Emergency Situation you would set your throttle to 52", adjust if necessary and not let it go over 56". I'd just set 56" as my upper limit not to exceed unnceccessarily. 

I also understand that if I dared I could fly at 56", but would have to constantly monitor MAP, which 52" somewhat relieves me off. 

[Crump]

 

 

Crummp literally said that

 

No Crumpp did not say that.  Crumpp said the exact same thing Klauss told you.  Some of you so literally bent on arguing that no matter what I say, you will find it wrong.  

 

You also seem quite convinced there is a plot afoot to deny your favorite aircraft it's due.....

 

 

 

 

 

find this whole discussion rather amusing given that a couple of pages back Crump swore black and blue that the P40E was equipped with the regulator

 

There is a lot of taking one small fact out of context and using it to advance an agenda.  It is called "quote mining" and is internet argument tactics that forms the basis of strawman.  

 

It is a fact that some V-1710F3R were equipped with the MAP regulator as Allison states....

 

 

 

If you push an F3R throttle to max without regulator, max MP is not 52", that is just ridiculous. It's gonna be higher then 56" considering 56" is achieved ~3,500ft and under

 

You are not correct.  On a standard day, If you push the throttle forward to the stops in level flight.  You will only get 52"Hg.  On a colder than standard day, you might get higher.  The "ramming altitude" referred to by the engineer in the Allison memo is density altitude.  When the density altitude is 3500 ft lower than normal and in overspeed conditions...you will see the 66"Hg discussed in the memo.  Think about it.  On a winters day in the dry air of North Africa, they most certainly experienced density altitude's of 3500 ft or even lower on occasion.  It probably lasted several weeks during the winter or days at a time.

 

The manifold on the V-1710F3R is a closed system without the MAP regulator.  The pressure inside it will change with the load on the propeller and the density of the air being put into that fixed volume.

 

The 52"Hg at the stops on a standard day is a buffer to help keep the pilot from blowing his engine.

 

You quite simply seem to think it just means I am saying you will only see 52"Hg.  You also quite simply think that the engine is going to produce greater than 52"Hg on a regular basis as some workaround means or exploit.

 

It does not work that way.  

[Crump]

 

 

You cannot fly at higher MAP with a regulator than without.

 

Sure you can...

 

P1V1=P2V2 is the major factor behind it.

[Venturi]

Lol

[Dave]

Crump states "There is a lot of taking one small fact out of context and using it to advance an agenda. It is called "quote mining" and is internet argument tactics that forms the basis of straw man." which has nothing at all to do with the Straw Man logical fallacy. He then proceeds to present his next Straw Man argument.

 

Placing the actual issue at hand aside for a moment, this just captures so brilliantly why arguments with this fool are so utterly frustrating.

 

The juxtaposition of these two complete failures in logical reasoning - the first: not even understanding what Straw Man is while arrogantly attempting to "educate" people who know better; the second: creating his own surrogate argument to attack which is unrelated to the other parties' position (what the educated know to be a Straw Man) is so telling it is almost entertaining. But, as usual, it diverts attention, in a cloud of obfuscation, away from the real issue that some of us who own the game are trying to have resolved without the endless ill-informed interference of a buffoon.

[JtD]

Perfect summary.

[Bearcat]

I would like to see just one thread that does not turn into a pissing contest when certain people are involved.. Just ONE...

[Stig]

You are not alone, BC.

[MiloMorai]

I would like to see just one thread that does not turn into a pissing contest when a certain people  person are  is involved.. Just ONE...

 

fixed

[Holtzauge]

Yep, the answer is singularis not pluralis: if you collect the statistics in flight sim forums there is actually a single common denominator in all threads that turn sour......

[Dakpilot]

Time for a short interlude

 

 

Normal service will be resumed shortly

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Venturi]

Lol

[Crump]

Crump states "There is a lot of taking one small fact out of context and using it to advance an agenda. It is called "quote mining" and is internet argument tactics that forms the basis of straw man." which has nothing at all to do with the Straw Man logical fallacy. He then proceeds to present his next Straw Man argument.

 

Placing the actual issue at hand aside for a moment, this just captures so brilliantly why arguments with this fool are so utterly frustrating.

 

The juxtaposition of these two complete failures in logical reasoning - the first: not even understanding what Straw Man is while arrogantly attempting to "educate" people who know better; the second: creating his own surrogate argument to attack which is unrelated to the other parties' position (what the educated know to be a Straw Man) is so telling it is almost entertaining. But, as usual, it diverts attention, in a cloud of obfuscation, away from the real issue that some of us who own the game are trying to have resolved without the endless ill-informed interference of a buffoon.

 

Why don't you link back to where I made this supposed contradiction and have "my facts" all screwed up?  That would be the easiest thing and the clearest thing for you to do instead of all this innuendo.  

 

Seems to me that if your goal was discussion of the facts or clarification of something said, you would done that ....simply and directly....

Crump states "There is a lot of taking one small fact out of context and using it to advance an agenda. It is called "quote mining" and is internet argument tactics that forms the basis of straw man." which has nothing at all to do with the Straw Man logical fallacy. He then proceeds to present his next Straw Man argument.

 

Placing the actual issue at hand aside for a moment, this just captures so brilliantly why arguments with this fool are so utterly frustrating.

 

The juxtaposition of these two complete failures in logical reasoning - the first: not even understanding what Straw Man is while arrogantly attempting to "educate" people who know better; the second: creating his own surrogate argument to attack which is unrelated to the other parties' position (what the educated know to be a Straw Man) is so telling it is almost entertaining. But, as usual, it diverts attention, in a cloud of obfuscation, away from the real issue that some of us who own the game are trying to have resolved without the endless ill-informed interference of a buffoon.

 

Reputation given

 Venturi

 JtD

 Holtzauge

[Dave]

\I read it like this: In an Emergency Situation you would set your throttle to 52", adjust if necessary and not let it go over 56". I'd just set 56" as my upper limit not to exceed unnceccessarily. 

I also understand that if I dared I could fly at 56", but would have to constantly monitor MAP, which 52" somewhat relieves me off.

In an emergency situation you would fly the aircraft. You would use whatever throttle was necessary to not be killed. Note that an emergency situation is not chasing down a fleeing enemy or climbing to build energy while extending away from the fight. It is looking over your shoulder and seeing a yellow spinner with flames coming out of it, or seeing an opponent cutting inside your turn to establish a lead-pursuit guns solution.

 

Having identified such a situation and felt the wire break as you pushed the throttle forward you would be conscious that you had limited time to get yourself out of said situation. How long that time was and at what MAP pilots were able to operate in reality, as opposed to by direction, is what I am trying to establish.

 

On the one hand we have documents stating recommended operating guidelines - which were revised several times as more field "test" results became available. On the other we have an example of some of those "test" results, records of interview with several operators of the engine in the airframe in question, and some conclusions drawn from operational records of availability and servicing that corroborate the assertion that the aforementioned recommended operating limits were regularly and reliably exceeded.

[Crump]

 

 

On the one hand we have documents stating recommended operating guidelines - which were revised several times as more field "test" results became available. On the other we have an example of some of those "test" results, records of interview with several operators of the engine in the airframe in question, and some conclusions drawn from operational records of availability and servicing that corroborate the assertion that the aforementioned recommended operating limits were regularly and reliably exceeded.

 

 

Where is that?

 

I see no such thing.  I see a few stories without any proof.  

 

Most laughably, the recommendations of the chief engineer of Allison who memo says exactly the opposite of "reliability exceeding" operational limits is being used as some sort of "twilight zone" interpretation that these operational limits can be safely exceeded.

 

Maybe on Opposite World that can happen....

[Dave]

The "stories" told by pilots, engineers and Allison employees in interviews, reports and memoranda are the proof. Without having an actual engine to run to destruction this is the only proof we have either for or against.
The first-hand experiences of professionals who were there are worth infinitely more to me than the speculations of a fraud.

Does anyone following this thread apart from Crump still not comprehend that Hazen's memo confirms that DAF squadrons in 1942 were operating their V1710s at 66" Hg and that Allison had already approved a WER of 60" on the same engine? If so I will bother to go through the memo line by line. Otherwise I won't waste my time.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Dave

[II./JG77_Manu*]

also posted memoires from Russian pilots in other topics regarding the same issue. Claiming they pushed the throttle fully forward "as long as it was necessary". Proof? Probably not. But nor are the loads of data sheets from all the aircraft of WW2. And why would they lie? 

[Venturi]

I have a source document detailing Merlin engine and supercharger developments throughout the war, including detonation limits on differing fuels. A Merlin running on the same fuel as available in Lend-Lease (British 100oct rating) safely produced a continuous 50" MAP without detonation. This was the limit for safe running under all conditions w/o detonation. At that power level, 50" MAP and 3000rpm continuous, the failure point was (at 27hours running time at power) that cracks developed in the crankshaft bearing webs. However, this was still not complete failure.

 

Detonation largely was a result of fuel limitations and hot spots in the engine (as previously discussed). IMO boost levels above 50" MAP become limited to shorter and shorter times as hot spots will be created - but 50" should, for all intents and purposes, be a safe level for continuous use... if we are looking at what a new engine could actually mechanically do without failure, within the timeframe of a single sortie.

 

IMO based on this very technical immediately post-war document, which has some universal relevance, 50" MAP should be the continuous power rating for the Allison in sim. If there is interest I will post the link.

 

If we are stuck on stupid with the official limits, then we will both not be modeling the way the engine actually operated, and will also be limiting the way it could actually perform.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

One of the big problems with the P-40 engine limits is that they are primarily tied to the RPM, i.e. greater then 2800RPM your are in combat mode, 3000rpm you are in WEP, irrespective of MP.

 

Brief outline

2600rpm and under

up to 40" is continous

40-44 is combat

44+ is WEP

 

2600-2800RPM

up to 44 is combat

44+ is WEP

 

2800-3000

Any MP is WEP.

Edited April 18, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Venturi]

Agreed. And that is a problem which some engines have in the game, and some do not.

 

(notably, all the automatically-controlled German engines can run max RPM at altitude, with low MAP, without going into emergency time - they therefore get additional full throttle height and power. The game uses only the MAP as the power setting which is used for engine limits in these a/c, but uses both map AND rpm in allied aircraft! What a load of bull.)

[II./JG77_Manu*]

If we are stuck on stupid with the official limits, then we will both not be modeling the way the engine actually operated, and will also be limiting the way it could actually perform.

 

[Edited]

 

I have repeatedly asked you to refrain from making such statements suggesting bias on the part of developers. This will be the last time without consequence.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Bearcat

[Dakpilot]

also posted memoires from Russian pilots in other topics regarding the same issue. Claiming they pushed the throttle fully forward "as long as it was necessary". Proof? Probably not. But nor are the loads of data sheets from all the aircraft of WW2. And why would they lie? 

 

I have not seen that actual quote, can you re-post it, thanks, if it was regarding P-40

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Crump]

 

 

If we are stuck on stupid with the official limits, then we will both not be modeling the way the engine actually operated, and will also be limiting the way it could actually perform.

 

No, because any pilot will tell you they do not intentionally violate limitations of aircraft.  That is how aircraft are flown.

 

 

 

Claiming they pushed the throttle fully forward "as long as it was necessary".

 

Absolutely!  That also does not mean they violated any limitations.  

 

It is kind of like asking a pilot his touchdown speed or vertical sink rate.  Yes, there is a limitation but you are focused outside the cockpit and not staring at the airspeed indicator or VSI.  The fact the airplane lands safely though is a good indicator no limitations were violated!

 

Time does weird things in combat.  Most combats lasted less than 5 minutes so "As long as necessary" does not seem unusual at all and certainly is not proof limitations were violated and appeals to the combat fairey normal. 

[Venturi]

But it would hamper the Yak (in relative performance), when all the engines would be modeled how they actually operated   --> not gonna happen

I have no idea what your meaning is here. The Yak runs at full RPM and full boost as these are apparently limited to continuous values in game. So I don't see what bearing your reference has to the P-40. If you like, the same standards applied to the P-40 would be 50" and 3000rpm continuous.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I have no idea what your meaning is here. The Yak runs at full RPM and full boost as these are apparently limited to continuous values in game. So I don't see what bearing your reference has to the P-40. If you like, the same standards applied to the P-40 would be 50" and 3000rpm continuous.

A lot of aircraft would benefit, if the engine limitation would be more plausible (amongst them of course the P40), the Yak would not benefit -->relative performance of the Yak would be worse compared to the rest. Just look at 1946 (with HSFX, i have never played without), where engines run pretty much how they were supposed to. The Yak1b in no means a bad plane, but in relative performance definitely not better then the La5, or later P40.

[Venturi]

I am not knowledgeable about the Yak's engine. To my knowledge it is limited to its continuous rating, using something like a MAP limiter.

 

Whereas the P-40E-1's engine does not have a MAP limiter. So they are completely different in that the P-40's pilot does a lot of engine management and has leeway to use his judgement (even if it is in error, or not - the freedom is his).

 

Regarding engine failure in general, well this is another thread which could be opened rather than this one which is specific for the P-40.

 

Although, I have already posted a solution, earlier in this thread, which deals with both the RPM/MAP mismatch issues as mentioned above, as well as a plausible engine limits system which takes into account both the official ratings for engines, and also the historical exigencies (such as those ratings being set as very conservative) by utilizing a semi-random, adjustable time interval for engine failure if the engine is used at the limits past the rated times.

 

I believe that taking both these into account would solve everything in one swoop, depending on implementation as to the length of time used for the "variable" timer - this could be adjusted per aircraft type based on engine performance information which was "non-official" but which was very much relevant.

 

*HINT: The P-40 should have a LONG variable timer at power levels above conservative "rated"

Edited April 19, 2016 by Venturi

[Dakpilot]

relative performance of the Yak would be worse compared to the rest. Just look at 1946 (with HSFX, i have never played without), where engines run pretty much how they were supposed to. The Yak1b in no means a bad plane, but in relative performance definitely not better then the La5, or later P40.

 

And what is this "feeling" you have that Yak1B should be inferior in performance compared to a later (I presume you mean P-40N, the majority type built and  received by Russia) P40 model based on?

 

I really think you must stop comparing things to IL-2 1946 as your 'baseline'...you will not be taken seriously, you also need to understand what continuous rating is..your personal "feeling" that Yak-1 engine should somehow be restricted goes against all documents and experience.

 

Also do you have any further info on post #436? I will asume that was about not about P-40 then

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Dave]

A lot of aircraft would benefit, if the engine limitation would be more plausible (amongst them of course the P40), the Yak would not benefit -->relative performance of the Yak would be worse compared to the rest. Just look at 1946 (with HSFX, i have never played without), where engines run pretty much how they were supposed to. The Yak1b in no means a bad plane, but in relative performance definitely not better then the La5, or later P40.

 

You really can't use a game as the basis for comparisons of real-world performance. 

 

In VVS service the P40 was used for the most part as a stop gap while the better performing Yak1 could be produced in large numbers. I don't know what source gave you the impression the P40 outperformed the Yak1 - it simply didn't. The latter's lower engine output was more than offset by its much lower weight.

 

The Yak's power loading was 0.31 kW/kg while the P40E's was 0.23 kW/kg. This resulted in better rate of climb and acceleration for the Yak. Top speed for the two was closer - it just took the P40 longer to get there unless beginning with a dive where the greater mass of the P40 would assist in overcoming drag.

 

If you are referring to the P40N with higher engine output, then the story is only slightly different. It had better top speed, but at 0.26 kW/kg still took longer to get there than a Yak1 in level flight.

 

(These figures are all calculated using "rated" power so you can't extrapolate conclusions for flight paramters beyond those for which the aircraft's nominal power was "rated" however - if operating at WEP of 60" the P40E power to weight ratio goes up to 0.31 kW/kg which is comparable to the Yak1 at full throttle and RPM.)

 

The Yak was also a marginally better flat-turner with a lower wing-loading (168 kg/m²) than the P40E (171.5 kg/m²). The P40 rolled well - about 96 degrees per second between 260 and 280 mph - and it is roll rate that led P40 pilots to talk about the Kittyhawk being more "manoeuvrable" than the 109. Some tend to draw the conclusion from this that the P40 was always able to outmanoeuvre the 109 and transitively the Yak1 which is plainly incorrect.

 

The VVS' assessment of the two types'  relative performance is discussed here. Yefim Gordon covers the VVS flight test reports of the P40s they received in his book Soviet Air Power in WW2 which says basically the same thing as above. 

 

But in this thread the Yak1 is a red herring anyway.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Dave

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

What you guys all don't understand is that you are all right. 

The Ram Air Effect Means that if the engine is tuned to 56" stationary on the Ground, at 485 kph that would increase to 65", factor 1.16, if you go even faster, or in some weather Conditions this will increase to 66" and even 70", at least as modelled ingame.

So Crump is right when he says the engines were tuned to their respective MPs, and you guys are right when you say that the engines COULD achieve much more. 

[JtD]

But the engine is not tuned to 56" stationary on the ground, because there is no tuning without automatic manifold pressure regulator. It's simply the throttle flap directly connected to the throttle control lever in the cockpit. When the lever is fully forward, the flaps is fully open and that's it.

Fully open throttle gives you 42.5" at 12000" in standard atmosphere ,as we know from the engine charts. This means the compressor will compress sea level air to about 62"-63" of boost. This is what you get stationary on the ground. Add to that ram effect at level top speed, and you'll have in excess of 70".

This will further increase if you have a high pressure environment.

[Venturi]

If the model is to be believable, then the max boost mechanically achievable should be acvailable to the pilot. This can be extrapolated from data of full power height as JtD said.

 

Next, what is continuous power rating, well we have Allisons rating, but that is not "continuous without detonation" which is what the game models as rapid failure at 3 mins. Actual "continuous without detonation" is much higher. RR knew with the Merlin that it was 50" with 100oct fuel. The Merlins ran a slightly lower compression ratio than the Allisons, which would tend to increase the MAP possible w/o detonation. On the other hand, Allisons used single stage superchargers so there was less heating of the incoming air charge as compared to the Merlins, so I think that's a wash. Fuel octane and MAP are the big factors and those are universally applicable across engines, accounting for CR differences with lower air charge temp on the Allison. So I think 50" is a reasonable real world "continuous without detonation" power level for the Allison.

 

Next, what are the detonation limits at boost levels greater than 50", the max continuous power w/o detonation? This is very hard to determine but we have Hazens letter and others saying it was much longer than 5 min and much higher than 56" which was Allisons own WER for this engine. So I would hazard 60" for 5 min as a good conservative value here. Hazen even states 60" in the letter.

 

Next, what is the structural limits (not detonation). Well in Vees there is an account of the earlier more fragile version of the V-1710 being run at 56" for 80min without failure, it had crank webbing cracks but no failure. So I think in game terms structural limits can be ignored, except for prop overspeeds if that is ever implemented.

 

Next, how do we read all this on the dash given the gauge only goes to 50? Well the MAP gauge is wrong in the P-40. Real P40E map gauges have a large blank space at the bottom third of the gauge between 50 and 0, Like every other vacuum/pressure gauge I have ever seen, I believe the needle was not limited to 50" but could rotate past this mark. Regardless obviously P40s had a gauge which could read more than 50" as Allison themselves rated the engine WER at 56" some time later.

 

Additionally, 2800 or 3000 RPM should not cause failure of the engine due to structural failure or by detonation. The engine is rated to withstand 3000rpm without rod or valve train failure, there is no rational basis for making this a determination of "emergency mode".

[Dave]

What you guys all don't understand is that you are all right. 

The Ram Air Effect Means that if the engine is tuned to 56" stationary on the Ground, at 485 kph that would increase to 65", factor 1.16, if you go even faster, or in some weather Conditions this will increase to 66" and even 70", at least as modelled ingame.

So Crump is right when he says the engines were tuned to their respective MPs, and you guys are right when you say that the engines COULD achieve much more. 

 

Don't assume that people "don't understand".

By the way, engines weren't tuned on the ground ... exactly. The procedure was to set TO power on the ground and test adjustment for WEP in flight due to insufficient engine cooling at ground level on a stationary aircraft. Then, if the required MAP was not achieved at WEP the linkage was adjusted. Incidentally you only "tune" the carburettor linkage for a MAP regulator equipped engine.

Once again, the P40E was not - I repeat NOT - equipped with a MAP regulator.

With a regulator-equipped engine the values you set for the MIL detent and WEP maximum pressure are just that - pressures, not throttle plate positions.

 

So Crump is not right - on either account.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Dave

[=FEW=Hauggy]

Sorry for interrupting this discussion but I found something that you may find interesting.

They are not using a E model and the engine is a packard copy of the Rolls Royce.

EDIT: They do mention the Allison engine saying that you can climb at full military power for 5 minutes with it

[flash=]

Edited April 19, 2016 by Hauggy

[Dave]

Sorry for interrupting this discussion but I found something that you may find interesting.

They are not using a E model and the engine is a packard copy of the Rolls Royce.

EDIT: They do mention the Allison engine saying that you can climb at full military power for 5 minutes with it

 

Zeno's has a few of those.

 

The flight manual for the E contains instructions for climb after take-off. They are to maintain TO throttle while climbing until MAP reduces to 42" then to continue climb maintaining 42" MAP until critical altitude.

 

Try that in game. Result == BOOM!

Edited April 19, 2016 by Dave

[Venturi]

At a initial climb rate of 1500fpm, it would take you about 8-10 min to get to 12,000' the FTH.

 

Just following the directions, just to climb! results in an exploded engine in game. Let alone going into battle "balls to the walls" as Joe put it...